Re: Fwd: Eeek - .NU Domains using

["Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>]

At 15:53 00/01/10 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> At 06:01 10.01.00 -0800, Bill Manning wrote:
> >%
> >% At 17:29 09.01.00 -0800, Bill Manning wrote:
> >%
> >% >I'd be strongly in favor of not mixing glyphs between sets.
> >%
> >% but we can't tell whether we are doing this without defining what a "set"
> >% is, which gets us started down the implementation slippery slope.
> >
> >         Punt to ISO, they've done a fine job of defining set creation.
> 
> yes, we can just pick one of their many definitions......
> seriously, using the ISO 10646 named subsets makes sense, but I didn't want 
> to  go there because it makes the 10646-or-not question come to the front 
> again.

No, we most probably can't. ISO 10646 named subsets are not
easily available (there is a plan to put the whole standard
on the web in PDF), they may overlap, and what's currently
defined doesn't work, at least not standalone (e.g. the Latin
script is covered by more than one subset, but for our purposes,
they clearly have to go together; also, the subsets don't
distinguish between characters and symbols, and so on).


Regards,   Martin.


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, World Wide Web Consortium
#-#-#  mailto:duerst@w3.org   http://www.w3.org